Jump to content

Some stats on scheme selection in the world series in GG2.


Maniacal_cackle

Recommended Posts

I was just curious about stats in GG2 in the Malifaux World Series, so I just manually added up some data from the public tableau. Here's what I came up with for how often schemes were selected in the three events that were purely GG2 (not counting the championship).

  • Research Mission 34 + 56 +48 = 138 
  • Assassinate 37 + 64  +21 = 122 
  • Claim jump 29 + 59 +33 = 121 
  • Let them bleed 26 +61 +33 = 120 
  • Vendetta 21 + 46 +45 = 112 
  • Hidden martyrs 31  + 57 +24 = 111 
  • Breakthrough 21 + 51 + 18 = 90 
  • Bait and switch 34 +33 +20 = 87 
  • Death beds 38 + 20 +23 = 81 
  • Catch and release 32 +32 +11 =75 
  • Detonate 24 +26 +11 = 61 
  • Spread them out 20 +22 +14 = 56 
  • Outflank 17 +13 +3 =33 

I'm certainly taking a biased eye to this, but what stands out to me is that the schemes that are heavily favoured are the ones that you can score passively in a game where you just attack your opponent.

Research mission for many crews you can score simply by standing in the right place at the right times (and in many cases, takes 0 AP to score).

Assassinate, let them bleed, vendetta, hidden martyrs are all chosen with great frequency, and are all schemes that reward just brawling with your opponent.

Claim jump is the highest ranked one that cannot be scored passively in that you often have to reposition models, but it is still generally taken in brawl-oriented games.

Breakthrough and bait and switch are sort of middle of the road, which means that actively scoring points is still reasonably popular. Both of these really take some effort (although bait and switch you can also just go for one passive point so it is hard to know what people are thinking here).

Death beds is another one of those awkward ones that taxes you a bit of AP, so am not surprised it isn't that popular.

Catch and release and detonate are somewhat popular, but I suspect that's because some crews are exceptionally good at them and take them constantly. It'd be rare to see a crooligan that isn't going for catch and release or a huckster not going for detonate when they're in the pool.

Spread them out is taken at similar rates to the other two above, again likely reflecting that it takes an extremely specialised crew to pull it off successfully.

Outflank... About 2 out of the 20 crews I've played enjoy doing Outflank... I think this scheme just broke when they increased the required scheme markers to 4 (up from 2 scheme markers to complete).

What do you think?

Do you think this is a good spread? Do you think it representative of competitive play with large metas (aka, where you see a large variety of crews?) Do you think things should change?

My take:

Personally I really miss having a balance of schemes that involved more active scheming. In some cases those active schemes were perhaps too efficient to score, but by making them less efficient I think now we are way more likely to see the passive stuff like assassinate.

I do think assassinate is good for the game because it discourages just treating masters as completely disposable, but I think some of these schemes should be looked at. Research mission in particular is just too easy and I hope will be retired for GG3.

Another thing to consider is that this is the most AP-intensive set of strategies we have ever had. This naturally pushes away from any active scoring schemes and instead towards the passive ones. So I hope that next GG will take into account the strategy/scheme interactions.

I hope things like outflank, spread them out, and breakthrough will become more common place. Would especially love to see one of the most represented schemes being an active-scoring one instead of just brawling (although I know that's probably not a popular opinion because it can lead to 'nongames' with less fighting). EDIT: And bring back some reformed version of Power Ritual, or a combination of power ritual and outflank!

  • Like 3
  • Agree 3
  • Respectfully Disagree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the numbers look good for everything except Research Mission, Detonate, Spread, and Outflank. 

Research mission is a bit too easy.  I feel like not removing the markers and counting strategy markers were two big issues.  I wish if they revisit it (because it is interesting) they don't let strategy markers count and make you remove a friendly scheme marker for point 1.   Something like "If you have a model within 4" and LOS of three or more different marker types on the enemy table half, you may remove a friendly scheme marker within 4" of that model to score a point"  

Detonate isn't even that bad you can do it on your side of the table and you don't pick a model.  I feel it's getting a bit undertaken.  Although the final point can suck against a lot of crews.  Maybe the second point should allow you to have the scheme markers close to two enemy models so you don't need the telegraphed two stack?

Spread... you need 6 scheme markers for the entire thing.  Ouch.  I wish you only removed two for the first point.  It'd be so much better.  It's also pretty telegraphed.

Outflank is terrible.  Point one should just be "remove two scheme markers" without needing the models there, point 2 should remain as is. 

 

So yeah, good packet.  Only one I have a really strong objection to that Outflank is way too terrible.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, RisingPhoenix said:

Detonate isn't even that bad you can do it on your side of the table and you don't pick a model.  I feel it's getting a bit undertaken.  Although the final point can suck against a lot of crews.  Maybe the second point should allow you to have the scheme markers close to two enemy models so you don't need the telegraphed two stack?

Interestingly someone else ran some numbers and found detonate charges had a terrible winrate (so if anything, it is probably overpicked)

unknown.png

So yeah, defiintely seems like it need a rework (although some Hucksters in particular make it pretty trivial to score).

15 minutes ago, RisingPhoenix said:

Spread... you need 6 scheme markers for the entire thing.  Ouch.  I wish you only removed two for the first point.  It'd be so much better.  It's also pretty telegraphed.

Yeah, 6 is just too much when you couple it with the AP requirements of the movement and everything else going on in the game.

At least for Breakthrough, the first point is easy.

15 minutes ago, RisingPhoenix said:

Outflank is terrible.  Point one should just be "remove two scheme markers" without needing the models there, point 2 should remain as is. 

Yeah, they definitely went too far. Personally I think the launch version (required the scheme markers but you didn't have to remove them) was a good balance. Requiring 2 scheme markers over the course of the game instead of 4 (or allowing you to double up on spread) made a lot of sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Strategy Markers counting for Research Mission is actually important to make it actually achievable for non-marker crews (Strat + Scheme + Corpse/Scrap), but I agree with the idea that a Scheme Marker must be removed. With Schill it does too often become a game of "I will play exactly the way I was going to anyway and just get two points free from it", really only preventable if an opponent can keep me locked in my Deployment Zone all game.

 

I agree overall that active scheming schemes like Search the Ruins or Sabotage do feel like they are missing from the new packet/far too AP intensive for the ones that remain. I actually really like Detonate Charges, but I do have several tools in my Outcast lists to actually make it viable.

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

Yeah, they definitely went too far. Personally I think the launch version (required the scheme markers but you didn't have to remove them) was a good balance. Requiring 2 scheme markers over the course of the game instead of 4 (or allowing you to double up on spread) made a lot of sense.

Except release version didn't require any markers:

Quote

9. Outflank
Reveal: At the end of the Turn, if you have two models, each within 3" of where the centerline meets a different table edge or corner, you may reveal this Scheme to gain 1 VP.
End: At the end of the game, if you have two models, each within 3" of where the centerline meets a different table edge or corner, gain 1 VP.

2 markers would be a nice compromise between the two versions. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Release Outflank was an absolute gimme scheme. I think we all remember an Arachnid Swarm running over to one and a soulstone miner popping up at the other to score it turn 2.  A version where you needed to have the markers and didn't remove them might be good.  It's also fairly polarizing as a scheme because, well, Cody of the Swampfiends podcast described it the single best way I've ever heard - "you get into situations where it feels like if you don't take it and contest it you should have taken it, so both players need to take it or you give up 2 points".  Fighting over it if you're not trying to score it was so bad that you had to almost let it go if you didn't take it.

I like the scheme markers because it gives you something else (ranged scheme marker removal) that can interact besides straight killing models, but... yeah the current version is awful.  Maybe it just needs to be reworked entirely - a scheme where for the first point you had to get to the edges but for the second point you needed those models in the middle or something would be far less "gimme" and stop the feeling where if you fight on the flanks without it you just feel dumb. 

 

Actually if I dislike anything about the current packet, it's that far too many of these have the second point as "do the first point, again."  Especially for things like Spread Them Out or Detonate Charges (or Outflank for that matter) that ends up being tons of scheme markers removed. 

Quote

Interestingly someone else ran some numbers and found detonate charges had a terrible winrate (so if anything, it is probably overpicked)

Fascinating.  I took it with Jack Daw since locking a model in place is practically Jack Daw's game, and it was predictably pretty easy to score.  I did have to bring the Hodgepodge Emissary though, and that double scheme marker can be hard to set up especially on top of a model.  This might be my confirmation bias kicking in, I scored it easily once so it's easy is not actually factually correct. 

Again it's another where you need 4 scheme markers and some other stuff to happen so maybe if it was changed to not remove the markers for the first point.  Or, for the second point just have markers near two or more enemy models might be all it needs - that second point is super telegraphed and there's tons of ways to disrupt it, making it a fairly hard scheme that's also a bit of a one point scheme. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/22/2021 at 6:51 AM, Maniacal_cackle said:

Interestingly someone else ran some numbers and found detonate charges had a terrible winrate (so if anything, it is probably overpicked)

unknown.png

So yeah, defiintely seems like it need a rework (although some Hucksters in particular make it pretty trivial to score).

I guess that the numbers are the average points scored by scheme, not a win/loss rate for the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 12/19/2021 at 3:01 AM, Maniacal_cackle said:

Another thing to consider is that this is the most AP-intensive set of strategies we have ever had. This naturally pushes away from any active scoring schemes and instead towards the passive ones. So I hope that next GG will take into account the strategy/scheme interactions.

This has been a gripe of mine for a while - I know Malifaux is supposed to be a competition of efficiency, and AP efficiency is the prime test of that etc. etc., but it's not unusual to get to a point in a game where most of my decisions are tightly dictated by necessity, rather than an interesting range of options, due to how many and how specific the actions needed to score VP can  be.

Add to that the significant reduction in bluffing due to both the Reveal mechanic and the AP demands often incentivising setting up to score early, and I find the current pool more of an interesting puzzle than a fun game.

  • Agree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/4/2022 at 2:54 AM, DuBlanck said:

This has been a gripe of mine for a while - I know Malifaux is supposed to be a competition of efficiency, and AP efficiency is the prime test of that etc. etc., but it's not unusual to get to a point in a game where most of my decisions are tightly dictated by necessity, rather than an interesting range of options, due to how many and how specific the actions needed to score VP can  be.

Add to that the significant reduction in bluffing due to both the Reveal mechanic and the AP demands often incentivising setting up to score early, and I find the current pool more of an interesting puzzle than a fun game.

I'd love for them to do a balance pass on 4 and 5 stone minions then revisit this if it's still an issue, but I definitely don't disagree.  There's a lot of scheme marker heavy choices. 

It's a lot better than GG1's packet but we still have room for improvement. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/7/2022 at 2:46 AM, RisingPhoenix said:

I'd love for them to do a balance pass on 4 and 5 stone minions then revisit this if it's still an issue, but I definitely don't disagree.  There's a lot of scheme marker heavy choices. 

It's a lot better than GG1's packet but we still have room for improvement. 

One part of the problem is that in 2nd Ed, you weren't restricted, if you had a relatively reasonable cheap Minion.

Both Guild Guard (now Patrol), and the infamous Bear Force 1 (a little pricier, but still punching above it's weight).

So you had "mass minion", mixed, and heavy elite. Now, you are heavily restricted on most minions, so even if Pass Tokens weren't an issue, you're still restricted, whereas heavy elite isn't, even moreso with multi-Master.

Now, I don't mind the idea of restrictions on Minions, but there's no restriction on elite combinations. I'm not a fan of army build ratios, and even if you tried to do something (each additional Henchman or Master beyond the first costs +1SS?), but there's several Enforcers (Horsies), and a few elite Minions (Mature Neph) that'd make that kind of thing inconsistent at best.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/9/2022 at 2:40 PM, Morgan Vening said:

One part of the problem is that in 2nd Ed, you weren't restricted, if you had a relatively reasonable cheap Minion.

Both Guild Guard (now Patrol), and the infamous Bear Force 1 (a little pricier, but still punching above it's weight).

So you had "mass minion", mixed, and heavy elite. Now, you are heavily restricted on most minions, so even if Pass Tokens weren't an issue, you're still restricted, whereas heavy elite isn't, even moreso with multi-Master.

Now, I don't mind the idea of restrictions on Minions, but there's no restriction on elite combinations. I'm not a fan of army build ratios, and even if you tried to do something (each additional Henchman or Master beyond the first costs +1SS?), but there's several Enforcers (Horsies), and a few elite Minions (Mature Neph) that'd make that kind of thing inconsistent at best.

I mean a better solution than force org charts is to just buff the bad stuff and make it good. People naturally want to bring cheaper units to scheme for them.  They're not avoiding doing so because of some restriction on the number of minions.  They're not doing so because 4 and 5 stone minions are not even close to worth half of what an 8-10 stone minion is.  If you could get similar value out of two 4 stone minions as you could from one 8, people would have a genuine choice.  Instead it's highly unlikely that a 4 stone minion that gets past the center line will live to the end of turn 2.  The few that are worth it, like Necropunks, see play. 

Many of the new cheap minions with Malifaux Burns are designed with an awareness of this issue and have multiple ways they can contribute and survive making them worth their cost. 

  • Agree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information